Smith v. Shuda
| Citation | 22 Wis.2d 629,126 N.W.2d 498 |
| Parties | Grace SMITH, Respondent, v. Theresa SHUDA, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 03 March 1964 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
Brazeau, Brazeau, Potter & Cole, Wisconsin Rapids, for appellant.
Norman L. Wanta, Stevens Point, for respondent.
Defendant contends that she was not negligent in that she violated no duty owed to the plaintiff.
The trial court properly instructed the jury on duties of the invitor to provide a reasonably safe place and to warn of dangers not known by nor apparent to the invitee. Instructions were also given on the invitee's duty to use reasonable care for her own safety.
As far as the negligence of defendant is concerned, she not only provided a waxed floor that constituted a hazard, but also actively provided and positioned a chair that would tip easily and directed that the plaintiff use it. The jury could well conclude that defendant was negligent.
The jury found, upon credible evidence, that both parties were causally negligent. We are traditionally reluctant to invade the province of the jury in apportioning causal negligence. Cases where we have done so are generally those in which the negligence of one party is co-extensive with that of the other. 2 In the instant case plaintiff intended to use the ladder and would have done so except for the direction of defendant to use the chair. Defendant also positioned the chair. The jury could fairly determine that the causal negligence of defendant was greater than that of plaintiff.
Judgment affirmed.
1 Wis.J.I.--Civil, Part II 8020; see also Greenfield v. Miller (1921), 173 Wis. 184, 188, 180 N.W. 834, 12 A.L.R. 982.
2 See for instance Langworthy v. Reisinger (1946) 249 Wis. 24, 23 N.W.2d 482, where the sole causal negligence involved was complete failure of lookout on the part of both parties.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Voeltzke v. Kenosha Memorial Hospital, Inc.
...The definition of the duty owed to an invitee as set forth in Wis J I--Civil, Part II, 8020 was recently approved in Smith v. Shuda (1964), 22 Wis.2d 629, 126 N.W.2d 498. That instruction, 8020, provides in 'An (owner) (occupant-possessor) must exercise ordinary care to the end that he disc......
- Goebel v. First Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n of Racine
-
Schlicht v. Thesing
...compensated by defendants. We deem these factors to be immaterial on the issue of whether plaintiff was an invitee. In Smith v. Shuda (1964), 22 Wis.2d 629, 126 N.W.2d 498, plaintiff, a married daughter, was helping her mother, the defendant, paint a kitchen in defendant's home at the latte......
- LaGrave v. Jones